2013 (7) TMI 1227 - HC - Indian Laws

Criminal Proceedings Quashed for Former Director Due to Insufficient Evidence of Vicarious Liability Post-Resignation.

D.M. Kulkarni Versus The State of West Bengal and Ors.

The HC granted the application under Section 482 CrPC, quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, a former director, in Case No. C/2012 of ... - Issues involved: Application u/s 482 of CrPC for quashing proceedings of Case No. C/2012 of 1997 u/s 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act before Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.Summary:1. The petitioner, a former director of the accused company, sought quashing of criminal proceedings u/s 138/141 of NI Act as he had resigned before the alleged cheque issuance. The petitioner argued that the complaint lacked specific averments against him to attract vicarious liability u/s 141. 2. The petitioner's counsel cited a Supreme Court case emphasizing that a director, after resignation duly notified to the Registrar of Companies, cannot be held liable for company actions post-resignation. The counsel argued that without specific averments, vicarious liability cannot be imposed on the petitioner.3. The petitioner's counsel further contended that vague allegations in the complaint regarding the petitioner's role in the company's affairs were insufficient to establish vicarious liability u/s 141. Citing various case laws, it was argued that specific roles of the accused director must be mentioned for liability.4. The de facto complainant raised doubts on the genuineness of the petitioner's resignation claim due to delayed assertion and discrepancies in Form-32 dates. The complainant highlighted the absconding of other accused causing trial delays.5. The complainant suggested that the trial should determine if there was an offense u/s 141 NI Act against the petitioner. 6. The petitioner's counsel explained the delay in raising the resignation defense, citing past legal views and the absence of a time limit for seeking quashing u/s 482 CrPC. A case law was referenced to support the reasonableness of the delay.7. The Court noted a shift in outlook since 2010, allowing consideration of documents proving resignation pre-cheque dishonor for quashing proceedings. The Form-32 certified the petitioner's resignation effective from 8th April 1996, despite other dates on the document.8. Emphasizing the lack of specific averments on the petitioner's role in the complaint, the Court reiterated that vague allegations cannot establish vicarious liability u/s 141. Trial delays due to absconding co-accused were not attributed to the petitioner.9. The Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the court's process.10. The application was allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, releasing them from any bail bond, while allowing the case to proceed against other accused individuals.